I feel like most people fail to realize that being part of a certain group does not automatically mean that you are affiliated with everything that group does.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;49755605]not as bad as actually doing it but still a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
yes
this has been established
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49755591]Also again, I was emotional when I was typing that post out, please stop giving me shit about it, I acknowledge it and I'm sorry.
Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE]
It's nice that you acknowledge the gut reaction at play here, and I can't even really blame you for it. This entire "BLM" situation has been warped into an emotional powderkeg by deliberately inflammatory articles like this one, and it's got people on all sides of the issue getting emotional and doing or saying stupid shit. Controversy sells, racism sells, and the last year or so has combined the two in a way that has media outlets creaming themselves on a regular basis.
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49755600]There's a difference between expressing violent sentiment, and committing violent acts.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for this unnecessary distinction.
just remember: if there's ever such thing as a race war, it was created to line CNN's pockets
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49755379]no, because the salt march was in 1930. i shouldn't have to explain to you why this is a retarded argument[/QUOTE]
i was in the salt march of 1930 wtf are you on about
just because I say I'm a part of something doesn't mean I'm actually a part of it and represent the movement itself.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49755491]I don't have a narrative. You and OP do.
[editline]16th February 2016[/editline]
It's blatantly not a hate crime so why would it be prosecuted as such? There is nothing to suggest they attacked him based on ethnicity.[/QUOTE]
So do you think they would have done this to a black person on the street? I certainly don't. The BLM name drop alone suggests that they chose this mark because he wasn't black.
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49755631]just remember: if there's ever such thing as a race war, it was created to line CNN's pockets[/QUOTE]
could you elaborate
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;49755637]could you elaborate[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49755621]This entire "BLM" situation has been warped into an emotional powderkeg by deliberately inflammatory articles like this one, and it's got people on all sides of the issue getting emotional and doing or saying stupid shit. Controversy sells, racism sells, and the last year or so has combined the two in a way that has media outlets creaming themselves on a regular basis.[/QUOTE]
it's industrialized outrage and controversy, on both "sides" (scare quotes because the "sides" are just as manufactured and ethereal as the controversy itself)
i'm not arguing that there isn't systemic oppression of black people by the system in place, i'm just saying that the media machine only serves to stir the pot for their own profit and vastly misrepresents the actual cause, and media controls the minds of the people
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49755621]
Thanks for this unnecessary distinction.[/QUOTE]
How is this an unnecessary distinction?
If I declare that I want to kill 6000001 Jews, am I worse than Hitler?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49755612]The articles title is at worst being presumptuous. [/QUOTE]
I like dishonest, or maybe disingenuine.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49755612]I'm against the idea of hate crimes but if we're going to have them they should be applied equally.[/QUOTE]
Okay and I already told you that this wasn't a hate crime.
[QUOTE=Mark Unread;49755636]So do you think they would have done this to a black person on the street? I certainly don't. The BLM name drop alone suggests that they chose this mark because he wasn't black.[/QUOTE]
Putting aside more thought-crime, a hate crime isn't defined by not prioritizing attacks based on race but specifically attacking someone based on their ethnicity. So it still wouldn't be a hate crime.
[QUOTE=BigWhitey;49755124]No I'm pretty sure they were motivated just to mug someone. It's not as if these kinds of things never happened before BLM became a thing.[/QUOTE]
Ahh, and their tourette's is what triggered them specifically asking the guy if he thought black lives matter, right? Like I said, they were [I]at least in part[/I] motivated by BLM rhetoric. Even if it was just bolstering their decision to attack somebody, it has an influence.
[editline]16th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49755426]Some violent, racist mooks deciding to beat on strangers does not make the very real injustices faced by minorities in this country any less serious or any less worthy of consideration.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is saying this, only that the Black Lives Matter movement has shifted in an extremely negative and polarizing direction and is currently doing more harm than good for race relations in America. Nobody is saying that because BLM keeps pulling stupid stunts, it means racial discrimination and police brutality are unimportant, only that BLM is a wholly inappropriate vehicle for that message right now.
Associating a movement with your actions doesn't mean you're a "part" of BLM (whatever that even means), but it does mean that it probably played some role in motivating roll for your actions, even if that motivation was a false extrapolation.
For example, why did this group attack this guy specifically? Was he the wealthiest looking? Was he the weakest? No, it seems that they specifically attacked him because he was 1) white and 2) not willing to agree with their sentiment about BLM. Motivation is generally one of, if not the most, important piece of information when it comes to crime.
Another example: if a person goes out and murders a woman who has an abortion in the name of Christianity, then it's clear that they were probably motivated by their understanding of Christianity. This tells Christians that they have some work to do. They need to ensure that other Christians they know understand why the actions of this person wasn't a good conclusion of their beliefs.
*NOTE*: This all assumes that the person in question is mentally stable and able to think clearly.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49755585]Also suddenly I'm the bad guy for being outraged by an American Vet getting beaten up for no reason?
I'm sorry, but I just felt I had to say something about this.[/QUOTE]
No you're the bad guy for advocating misguided violence against a group that has literally nothing to do with a distraction tactic commonly used by muggers. Get your shit together holy hell.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49755713]No you're the bad guy for advocating misguided violence against a group that has literally nothing to do with a distraction tactic commonly used by muggers. Get your shit together holy hell.[/QUOTE]
martin already apologized, we've moved on from this
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49755684]Yeah, but it gives the movement a bad image. A movement needs to have good publicity to be successful today.
That's what is so awful about these image hijackings, you can't do anything about it and everyone will think worse of the movement. It's almost like a falseflag (blackflag? idk, like those pirate ships in Civ3) operation.[/QUOTE]
People should know that these are image hijackings. That's the point of my posts. There is nothing inherently wrong with Black Lives Matter.
I don't watch American Media, I get my news from Canadian Networks to see the story and sensationalist headlines to see the reaction. This is my first post in any news story related to black lives matter and I thought it was just common sense by now that there are always going to be bad eggs on both sides and that there are going to be children spinning shit in their favor.
[editline]49[/editline]
Man FP has changed as of late. Pvt. Martin would've gotten a lot more flak for his comment if he posted it a year ago. I guess that's a good thing.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49755585]Also suddenly I'm the bad guy for being outraged by an American Vet getting beaten up for no reason?
I'm sorry, but I just felt I had to say something about this.[/QUOTE]
You're the bad guy because you wanted to beat up someone with no relation to this event
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49755719]martin already apologized, we've moved on from this[/QUOTE]
I'm about half a page behind it seems.
Either way, it's not the first time he's posted dumb shit like that, it's not going to be the last. He gets called on that stuff every time it happens and he still posts it. Might as well hammer that point home while he's here.
[QUOTE=phygon;49755724]You're the bad guy because you wanted to beat up someone with no relation to this event[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49755719]martin already apologized, we've moved on from this[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49755591]Also again, I was emotional when I was typing that post out, please stop giving me shit about it, I acknowledge it and I'm sorry.
Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE]
i'm just reiterating, fella seems fairly penitent so i'm giving him a big benefit of the doubt
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49755713]No you're the bad guy for advocating misguided violence against a group that has literally nothing to do with a distraction tactic commonly used by muggers. Get your shit together holy hell.[/QUOTE]
this probably wasn't a "distraction tactic"
They waited for the guy to leave the McDonalds and then bludgeoned him in the back of the head. Them asking him about BLM played absolutely no part in their assaulting and robbing him.
they weren't distracting him while someone else snuck up on him or something
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49755549]Putting aside the notion of finding a "BLM member" [B](remember, they don't carry cards, as one obviously very bright poster in this thread has already mentioned)[/B], there is nothing to indicate that these guys are actually a part of BLM.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand, is this a dig? I don't think what I said was very unreasonable.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49755711]Associating a movement with your actions doesn't mean you're a "part" of BLM (whatever that even means), but it does mean that it probably played some role in motivating roll for your actions, even if that motivation was a false extrapolation.
For example, why did this group attack this guy specifically? Was he the wealthiest looking? Was he the weakest? No, it seems that they specifically attacked him because he was 1) white and 2) not willing to agree with their sentiment about BLM. Motivation is generally one of, if not the most, important piece of information when it comes to crime.
Another example: if a person goes out and murders a woman who has an abortion in the name of Christianity, then it's clear that they were probably motivated by their understanding of Christianity. This tells Christians that they have some work to do. They need to ensure that other Christians they know understand why the actions of this person wasn't a good conclusion of their beliefs.
*NOTE*: This all assumes that the person in question is mentally stable and able to think clearly.[/QUOTE]
They attacked him because they wanted his wallet and credit card, which they used very shortly after the mugging. The article makes this clear, and the police too have ruled out investigating it as a hate crime. Pretty sure the police know what they're doing.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49755573]Hey I saw the headline and BLM has done stupid shit before. I admit I got emotional in my post, but only because this is some stupid crap I hate seeing on SH every day. Just pisses in my milk.[/QUOTE]
getting emotional is no excuse to punch someone holy shit
[QUOTE=BigWhitey;49755736]They attacked him because they wanted his wallet and credit card, which they used very shortly after the mugging. The article makes this clear, and the police too have ruled out investigating it as a hate crime.[/QUOTE]
They could have attacked anyone to get money and credit cards. Why did they specifically wait for this guy to leave in order to attack him? Based on what I have in the article is seems that they specifically targeted him because of his lack of response to their questions, having already called him a racist.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49755746]They could have attacked anyone to get money and credit cards. Why did they specifically wait for this guy to leave in order to attack him?[/QUOTE]
I'm not a criminal but I think it would be easier to mug someone outside where there is a lack of people than inside.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49755746]They could have attacked anyone to get money and credit cards. Why did they specifically wait for this guy to leave in order to attack him?[/QUOTE]
Because you're not going to attack someone [i]inside[/i] of a McDonalds, where there are heaps of witnesses?
Why did they target him specifically? Well maybe because he looked like a decent target for a mugging?
[QUOTE=BigWhitey;49755759]Because you're not going to attack someone [I]inside[/I] of a McDonalds, where there are heaps of witnessed?
Why did they target him specifically? Well maybe because he looked like a decent target for a mugging?[/QUOTE]
If a group of white people called a black guy a nigger, waited for him to leave where he was, attacked him, and stole his stuff, I can't imagine we would be seeing any of this defense of their motives as nothing more than simple muggers.
They clearly showed that they had issue specifically with this guy.
[QUOTE=BigWhitey;49755736]The article makes this clear, and the police too have ruled out investigating it as a hate crime. Pretty sure the police know what they're doing.[/QUOTE]
Surely you understand that just because the police don't have reasonable evidence to investigate something as a hate crime, doesn't alter the reality that the attack was likely racially motivated?
[QUOTE=srobins;49755735]I don't understand, is this a dig? I don't think what I said was very unreasonable.[/QUOTE]
No, but looking back it seems like a smartass thing to say. Sorry.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49755734]this probably wasn't a "distraction tactic"
They waited for the guy to leave the McDonalds and then bludgeoned him in the back of the head. Them asking him about BLM played absolutely no part in their assaulting and robbing him.
they weren't distracting him while someone else snuck up on him or something[/QUOTE]
Distractions can be more than "let a buddy sneak up". Just averting somebodies attention from the situation in front of them with a direct, loaded question can do wonders for keeping them busy enough to get a free hit in.
A "BLM member" using a delay in answering as a reason to actually mug a random person seems a little too convenient to have actually happened.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49755771]No, but looking back it seems like a smartass thing to say. Sorry.[/QUOTE]
No worries, I figured it's not really your style and it was probably just a wording thing hahaha
[editline]16th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49755773]Distractions can be more than "let a buddy sneak up". Just averting somebodies attention from the situation in front of them with a direct, loaded question can do wonders for keeping them busy enough to get a free hit in.
A "BLM member" using a delay in answering as a reason to actually mug a random person seems a little too convenient to have actually happened.[/QUOTE]
Yes but they asked him about BLM, he didn't respond, and then some time passed before he went outside and was attacked. I don't know if you're misunderstanding the story or if I am, but it's not like he walked outside, someone said "Hey man, you think black lives matter??" and they punched him in the back of the head while he was scratching his chin.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
